Report on homophobic speech by members of Moldova's parliament
by
GenderDoc-M and ILGA-Europe1
Executive Summary
In the April PACE session the leader of the Moldovan delegation to the Assembly, Ms Ana Gutu,
tabled a Written Declaration entitled "Unjustified damage to the image of the Moldovan
Parliament". This responded to a Declaration tabled by Danish delegate Mr Mogens Jensen, entitled
"Homophobic speech by members of Moldova's parliament and intimidation of LGBT human rights
defenders". Ms Gutu’s Declaration denied the main allegation in Mr Jensen’s:
"there have been no homophobic speeches by any member of the Moldovan Parliament …..
It is regrettable that Assembly members had been misled into signing a baseless
declaration, thus becoming accomplices in spreading lies which damage unjustifiably the
image of a member state of the Council of Europe."
This report sets out examples of the homophobic speech by members of Moldova's parliament in
March 2011 which Mr Jensen’s Declaration addressed. It also documents examples of intimidation of
LGBT human rights defenders by members of the general public in the same month.
The negative consequences of intolerant language depend both on their context and on their
content. So far as context is concerned, this report demonstrates that the intolerant language was,
in significant examples, expressed by high profile politicians (including the current and former
President, a Minister, and leaders of political parties), transmitted widely through the broadcast
media, and directed at a minority which is highly vulnerable to discrimination and violence - a
vulnerability heightened by the repeated failure of the police, public officials, and the courts to
secure their rights and to provide adequate protection.
So far as content is concerned, the report explains why, to quote the relevant Recommendation of
the Committee of Ministers, the language used in the examples given is "likely to produce the
effect of legitimising, spreading or promoting discrimination or hatred based on intolerance". It
demonstrates the use of language against a vulnerable minority which is derogatory and
dehumanising, threatening, stigmatising, and scaremongering. It also shows how much of the
language in question depends on common prejudices and stereotypes, many of which have been
rejected as invalid by the Assembly's own report on discrimination on the grounds of sexual
orientation or gender identity, or, in some cases, by the European Court of Human Rights.
.
1
GenderDoc-M is an NGO working for the rights of LGBT people in Moldova. ILGA Europe is the European Region of the
International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association.
1
The authors of the report hope that its analysis will give rise to a better understanding of why the
use of the language in question by democratic politicians is unacceptable and can intensify the
danger of violence and discrimination against a vulnerable minority and those who work to defend
their rights.
We repeat the call made by Mr Jensen in his Written Declaration to Moldovan members of
parliament to accept, in accordance with Recommendation No. R(97) 20 of the Committee of
Ministers, that they have a particular responsibility to refrain from statements which are likely to
produce the effect of legitimising, spreading or promoting discrimination or hatred based on
intolerance, and to recognize particularly that such speech can endanger the safety and well-being
of others.
1
Introduction
In March 2011 the Moldovan government put forward a bill to introduce anti-discrimination
legislation. The inclusion of sexual orientation as one of the protected grounds met with strong
opposition from certain NGOs, faith organisations and prominent politicians, and the bill was
withdrawn. During the public debate homophobic statements by opponents of the legislation were
widely covered in the media.
The Assembly's Monitoring Committee Rapporteurs visited Moldova in March. Their subsequent
Information Note discussed the circumstances surrounding the introduction of the proposed
legislation and commented as follows:
“The submission of the draft law however has given rise to considerable controversy in the
country. In particular some NGOs, members of the clergy, and the five Orthodox churches
and prominent politicians have expressed their hostility and opposition to the inclusion of
the terms “sexual orientation" in the draft. We deplore the use of homophobic language,
which is unacceptable."2
The homophobic comments reported in the media were accompanied by acts of intimidation by
members of the general public against human rights defenders publicly associated with support for
the rights of the LGBT community.
Concerned at these developments a member of the Assembly, Mr Mogens Jensen, tabled a Written
Declaration during the April part session entitled "Homophobic speech by members of Moldova's
parliament and intimidation of LGBT human rights defenders". This had two objectives:
 To remind parliamentarians, particularly those holding important public office, of their
particular responsibility, as set out in Recommendation No. R(97) 20 of the Committee of
Ministers, to refrain from statements which are likely to produce the effect of legitimising,
spreading or promoting discrimination or hatred based on intolerance3
 To emphasise that such statements can contribute to creating a climate of hostility which
endangers the safety and well-being of others.
Later in the session the leader of the Moldovan delegation to the Assembly, Ms Ana Gutu, tabled a
counter declaration, entitled "Unjustified damage to the image of the Moldovan Parliament". This
stated that
2
AS/Mon(2011)13 rev. - 14 April 21 - Honouring of obligations and commitments by Moldova - Information note by the corapporteurs on their fact-finding visit to Chisinau and Comrat (21-24 March 2011) - paragraph 70
3 Recommendation No R. (97) 20 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on "Hate Speech"
2
"there have been no homophobic speeches by any member of the Moldovan Parliament, a
fact easily attested by all the documentary evidence, such as video recordings, minutes of
parliamentary discussions and media coverage….. It is regrettable that Assembly members
had been misled into signing a baseless declaration, thus becoming accomplices in
spreading lies which damage unjustifiably the image of a member state of the Council of
Europe."
Attachment 1 provides the full text of the two Declarations.
This report sets out examples of the homophobic speech by members of Moldova's parliament
which Mr Jensen’s Written Declaration addressed. However it goes further than this. The gulf
between the views expressed in the two Written Declarations suggests a need to clarify why the
language in question qualifies as homophobic and why its consequences are potentially serious. This
report seeks to provide that clarification.
The impact of intolerant language depends both on content, and on context. The latter includes
factors such as the status of the person using the intolerant language and the means and the extent
of dissemination. It also includes, crucially, the vulnerability to discrimination and violence of the
group against whom the language is directed. As this latter question is particularly relevant in the
case of the LGBT community in Moldova, the report starts by illustrating the climate of intolerance
faced by this group.
It must be stressed that it is not the purpose of this report to challenge the right of members of the
Moldovan parliament to oppose anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation as a
protected ground, however much we disagree with this position. Our concern in this report is that
members of parliament should use language responsibly, basing their arguments on human rights
principles on the one hand, and facts rather than prejudices on the other.
2
The climate of intolerance faced by the LGBT persons in Moldova and their consequent
vulnerability to violence and discrimination
The vulnerability of Moldova's LGBT community rests both on the hostility of many members of the
general public, and on the widespread refusal of public authorities and politicians to uphold their
rights or even to provide protection from violence and discrimination.
2.1
Public opinion
Much of the hostility to LGBT people is incited by extremist groups, which are sometimes religiously
based. For example, the Christian Moldova Association states at its website that:
“These practices destroy personality, family and entire society because they imply homosexuality,
pedophilia, bestiality, sado-masochism, necrophilia, gerontophilia, etc.”4
A group called "Stop Gay!" was created on the social network Facebook, where much of the
information published amounted to incitement to violence, hatred and intolerance. In a message
opposing the proposed 2010 gay pride parade, the group's founder commented:
4
http://www.moldovacrestina.net/politica/legea-nediscriminare/de-ce-homosexualii-cer-lege-nediscriminare/
3
"Under the names of "tolerance" and "diversity", there is imposed on us the most
shameless, degrading and depraved form of insult. If you value your people and do not want
this lack of discipline to take place, be ready to go out to the square to protect our values!
Moldova is not Sodom!"
Such homophobic language is sometimes picked up in the mainstream media. For example, in
March 2011, in an article entitled "Why I oppose the anti-discrimination law", a well-known
journalist Petru Bogatu, wrote:
"Anyone would say homosexuality is a blemish, a form of invalidity. It is a deviation from the
biological norm. Homosexuals must be treated like those who are born blind, like the
people who left their mother's womb with not 5, but with 8 toes on a foot". 5
This intolerance towards LGBT people is echoed in the wider population. A January 2011 survey by
the Soros Foundation of Moldova covering some 1200 respondents found that only 14% of
respondents were willing to accept LGBT people as neighbours, 13% as a work colleague, 10% as a
friend, and just 4% as a family member.6 These represent amongst the highest rates of intolerance
recorded in Europe.
2.2
The refusal of many politicians and public authorities to uphold the rights of LGBT people
The vulnerability of the LGBT community in Moldova is made all the greater by the refusal of many
politicians and public authorities to defend their rights and protect them from violence and
discrimination. This is demonstrated most clearly in the context of the attempts by members of
GenderDoc-M to exercise the right to freedom of assembly.
The extent to which there is respect for the right to freedom of assembly is a key test of the
willingness of society in general, and of the authorities in particular, to accept a plural and diverse
society. Between 2005 and 2007 attempts by GenderDoc-M to exercise the right to freedom of
assembly in Chisinau were banned or otherwise prevented on seven different occasions and
permitted on none. In most cases the pretext used by the City authorities was the threat of counterdemonstrations by religious organisations.
In 2008 an amendment to the legislation on freedom of assembly removed the requirement for prior
approval by the City authorities to stage peaceful demonstrations. Accordingly GenderDoc-M wrote
to the Ministry of Internal Affairs requesting protection for a peaceful demonstration on May 11,
2008. Two days later GenderDoc-M were informed that the Mayor's Office had banned the
demonstration. The Mayor of Chisinau, Mr Dorin Chirtoaca, is a member of the Liberal Party. Since
his Office had no legal powers to ban the demonstration, GenderDoc-M ignored the ban. However,
when its bus full of demonstrators arrived at their destination, it was surrounded by some hundreds
of counter-demonstrators, who blocked it, and threatened its occupants with physical harm. Two
men from the crowd forced their way into the bus and confiscated flags, banners posters etc, after
which the bus was compelled under threat of violence to return to GenderDoc-M's office.
Throughout the episode six police cars were present some hundred metres from the bus, and
despite repeated telephone calls to the police requesting their protection, did nothing to control
the crowd of counter-demonstrators.
5
Petru Bogatu: Why I Oppose Anti-discrimination Law
http://www.voceabasarabiei.net/stiri/editorial/15238-de-ce-sunt-impotriva-legii-anti-discriminare
6 http://soros.md/en/perceptia_discriminare_RM
4
Following this, many of the GenderDoc-M demonstrators were trapped inside the office for several
hours by the crowd, who began throwing eggs and posting abusive leaflets. Again, police kept their
distance, and did nothing to stop the crowd.
Three days after the demonstration ILGA-Europe wrote to then President, Vladimir Voronin, the
then Prime Minister, Ms Zinaida Greceanii, the then Minister of Internal Affairs, Valentin Mejinschi,
and the then President of Parliament (now interim President of the Republic) Mr Marian Lupu,
asking that they publicly denounce the violent threats against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender community in Moldova, and requesting the relevant government bodies to do a
thorough investigation of the violent events, especially the lack of police intervention. Neither
public denunciation nor thorough investigation was forthcoming. On the contrary, shortly
afterwards, the President of Parliament (now the Interim President of the Republic) declared that
"public events of homosexuals are inadmissible," and emphasised that
"all Moldovan politicians share this unanimous attitude because it reflects the mentality and
moral values of the Moldovan society."7
Additionally, Iurie Rosca, at that time Deputy President of Parliament and Chairman of the ChristianDemocratic People's Party, in a speech to other members of parliament, accused homosexuals of
"encroaching on the moral principles of society," declaring that "homosexuality is an immoral and
existential mistake," and supporting the aggressive actions of the counter-demonstrators:
“A lot of child abuse cases in Western countries are the result of a wrong vision on sexuality;
this is why, I believe, the reaction of those citizens manifested actively and peacefully
against homosexuals was perfectly justified. This is why we should protect our children
from the propaganda carried out by certain NGOs, as well as by certain mass media which
perturb their lives."8
This period saw a string of attacks on the offices of GenderDoc-M, to which the police failed to
respond. On one occasion staff members arrived to find the office's windows had been smashed
with rocks. On another, the office manager discovered a petrol bomb on the office window-sill -- a
street cleaner had extinguished the fuse before the flames could reach the gasoline. On yet another,
the office was plastered with homophobic leaflets signed by an extremist religious organisation.
Although the police were notified about each of these attacks, GenderDoc-M has not received any
updates on the status of any investigations, and the organisation doubts that any investigations
have taken place.
A year later the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Mayor's Office to ban the
demonstration.
In 2009 GenderDoc-M decided not to try to hold a gay pride demonstration. They believed that
there was little chance that the police would adequately protect demonstrators, and the risks had
increased after the post-election violence of April 2009. However, other gay pride events were held,
and were attended by Mr Sören Juvas, the President of the Swedish National LGBT organisation,
RFSL. One evening he was approached by uniformed police, who asked if he was in Chisinau for the
Moldova Pride, and if he was gay. When he responded in the affirmative, he was taken to a police
station. On being released he was attacked and beaten outside the police station. The men who
7
At a meeting with teachers and students of the Balti State University Alecu Rosso on May 26, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynL691olv4E&feature=related Minutes: 7:11-9:20
http://www.moldovacrestina.net/video/fractiunea-ppcd-a-facut-declaratie-n-sedinta-parlamentului-legat-de-paradahomosexualilor/
8
5
attacked him are thought either to have been police in civilian clothing, or men who had been
informed by the police that he was going to be outside the police station at that time.9
In 2010 GenderDoc-M again tried to hold a demonstration. However, the Mayor, Mr Dorin
Chirtoaca, applied to the courts for a ban. He commented to the media,
"How can I protect them? They should protect themselves in "activities" that they do. The
Mayor cannot protect this kind of people."10
The Court of Appeal supported the ban. This was overturned by the Supreme Court of Justice, but
too late for the event to be held, and in a judgement that neither recognized the discriminatory
nature of the ban, nor bound Chisinau City Hall to prevent such situations in future.
In 2011 GenderDoc-M decided not to try to hold a demonstration, in view of the obstacles placed in
their way, and the continuing danger to participants.
In summary, the vulnerability of Moldova's LGBT community to discrimination and violence is
greatly increased by the failure of the police to provide protection, by the refusal of certain public
officials to uphold their rights, and even to attack these rights, and by the weakness of the courts
in upholding the law.
3.
Homophobic statements by members of the Moldovan Parliament in March 2011
In Attachment 2 we set out examples of homophobic statements made by members of the
Moldovan Parliament during the public debates on the anti-discrimination legal proposal. We also
provide links to the websites where the originals have been published. These refute the statement
made in the Written Declaration "Unjustified damage to the image of the Moldovan Parliament",
that "there have been no homophobic speeches by any member of the Moldovan Parliament".
As already noted, in judging the seriousness of intolerant statements, it is important to take account
both of the context and of the content of the statements
So far as context is concerned, the following elements are important:
The intolerant statements listed are
(i)
directed at a vulnerable minority - as demonstrated in section 2 above.
(ii)
made in the context of public debates involving strong and overt hostility by civil society
and faith organisations towards this minority.
(iii)
made by influential members of the Parliament, including the current interim President
of the Republic, a former President of the Republic, a former interim President of the
Republic, current party leaders, the current Minister of Labour, Social Protection and
the Family, and the president of the Parliamentary Committee on Environment and
9
See the speech by the Nyamko Sabuni, Minister for Integration and Gender Equality, at
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/8811/a/127052; Mr Juvas had to return to Sweden the day after the attack, so was
unable to press for a police investigation.
10 rotv.md/stiri/social/protest-in-favoarea-paradei-gay-in-fata-primariei.html
6
Climate Change; they include members of three important parties in the Parliament, the
Communist Party, the Liberal Party and the Democrat Party.
(iv)
communicated (in almost all the examples given) to a potentially wide audience through
the broadcast media and/or the Internet.
So far as the content is concerned, following each of the statements listed in the attachment, we
clarify why -- to quote the relevant Committee of Ministers Recommendation -- the language in
question is "likely to produce the effect of legitimising, spreading or promoting discrimination or
hatred based on intolerance". The language falls into the following broad categories:
(i) Derogatory and dehumanising: language which implies that LGBT people are subhuman, like
animals, or abnormal or deviant, or that their inferior status makes it offensive to the
majority that they should claim their rights.
(ii) Threatening: in one example, the possibility of the majority "seeking revenge" is
adumbrated in a manner that appears possibly even to condone such action, given the
homophobic language which precedes it, and since violence and discrimination is not clearly
repudiated.
(iii) Stigmatising LGBT people as a danger to the family, to society, to humanity, and to blame
for the country’s low birth rate.
(iv) Scaremongering that the introduction of protection from discrimination for LGBT people will
lead to the imposition of "abnormal practices" on society as a whole.
Homophobic language often involves giving expression to a common prejudice. The examples given
in Attachment 2 are no exception. In his 2010 Report for the Parliamentary Assembly on
Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity the Rapporteur, Mr Gross,
identified the most widespread prejudices about homosexuality, and explained why they are
baseless. His explanations address a number of the prejudices raised above, including:
 the supposed abnormality of homosexuality
 its supposed danger to the traditional family
 the notion that it can spread, or be imposed on others, particularly children
 its supposedly negative demographic effects
Because of the importance of this information in gaining an understanding of homophobic language,
the section of Mr Gross's report addressing these prejudices is included here as Attachment 3.
A very widespread prejudice repeated a number of times in the statements in Attachment 2 is the
supposed danger of the recognition of homosexuality to the traditional family. This argument has
been used by governments in attempting to justify discrimination against homosexuals both before
the European Court of Human Rights, and the UN Human Rights Committee. In both cases the
tribunal in question found that the government concerned (respectively, Austria and Colombia) had
failed to put forward any evidence which would justify their argument.11
11
In the ECHR case of Karner v. Austria (2003), Karner was denied the right to succeed to the tenancy held by his partner
on the latter's death, a right which would have applied in the case of an unmarried different sex couple. The Austrian
government claimed that this discrimination was necessary to protect the “traditional family unit”. The ECtHR found that
the Austrian government had failed to advance any arguments that would justify excluding same-sex couples to achieve
this aim. The UN HRC case of X v. Colombia challenged the denial of pension rights to same-sex partners, when such
benefits were available to unmarried heterosexual partners. The Human Rights Committee noted the government’s claim
7
We urge politicians and others who use this argument to accept the obvious conclusion – that there
is no factual basis for this prejudice.
A second, widespread prejudice is that information about LGBT people poses a threat to children or
other members of society. In its recent judgment on the banning of Pride marches in Moscow, the
European Court of Human Rights addressed these and other misconceptions as follows:
"The mayor of Moscow, who statements were essentially reiterated in the Government's
observations, considered it necessary to confine every mention of homosexuality to the
private sphere and to force gay men and lesbians out of the public eye, implying that
homosexuality was a result of a conscious, and antisocial, choice. However, they were
unable to provide justification for such exclusion. There is no scientific evidence or
sociological data at the Court's disposal suggesting that the mere mention of
homosexuality, or open public debate about sexual minorities’ social status, would
adversely affect children or "vulnerable adults". On the contrary, it is only through fair and
public debate that society may address such complex issues as the one raised in the present
case. Such debate, backed up by academic research, would benefit social cohesion by
ensuring that representatives of all views are heard, including the individuals concerned. It
would also clarify some common point of confusion, such as whether a person may be
educated or enticed into or out of, sexuality, or opt into or out of it voluntarily. This was
exactly the kind of debate that the applicant in the present case attempted to launch, and it
could not be replaced by the officials spontaneously expressing uninformed views which
they considered popular.”12
We urge the members of the Moldovan Parliament whose statements are listed in Attachment 2, to
take note of the above judgment by the European Court of Human Rights.
4.
Acts of intimidation by members of the general public against LGBT human rights
defenders at the time of the public debates on the anti-discrimination legislation in March 2011
In March 2011, against the background of the homophobic outbursts in the media by
representatives of NGOs, faith organisations and certain parliamentarians referred to above, staff at
GenderDoc-M became aware of a marked increase in hostility towards the LGBT community, and
were themselves the subject of intimidating incidents at the hands of members of the general
public.
We believe that homophobic statements made by leading political figures contribute to an
environment where such intimidation of human rights defenders and community members is more
likely to occur. It was fortunate that in the examples which follow none of the individuals concerned
suffered serious injury. However it would be extremely irresponsible to take such an outcome for
granted. In recent years LGBT human rights defenders have been seriously injured in a number of
cities, including Moscow, Belgrade and Sarajevo, while ordinary members of the LGBT community
have been injured or even killed in many countries across Europe, including Moldova.

After appearing on television speaking in support of the anti-discrimination proposal,
GenderDoc-M’s lawyer, Doina Ioana Straisteanu, found indecent homophobic inscriptions on
that the purpose of this distinction was “simply to protect heterosexual unions”, but found that it had failed to put forward
any argument that might demonstrate that such a distinction was reasonable and objective.
12 Case of Alexeyev v. Russia (Applications nos. 4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09)
8
her car. Soon after, on coming out from her apartment building, she discovered that both
mirrors on her car had been smashed.

At about the same time GenderDoc-M's President, Alexei Petrovich Marcicov, was going
home on a public minibus. A young man and woman were talking with each other and
observing him throughout the trip. When he got off the minibus, the young man pushed
Alexei Marcicov to the ground. After he had got back on his feet, Mr. Marcicov
remonstrated with that man. He responded in offensive terms about his sexual orientation
and added: “If you don’t like it here, clear off to Europe!” Alexei Petrovich did not respond
and set off in the direction of his apartment building. As he walked, a stone was thrown at
him, hitting his arm. The offenders disappeared instantly.

On 17 March 2011, three GenderDoc-M staff members called a taxi cab to go home. On their
way, they were discussing the draft anti-discrimination law. After a while, the taxi driver
broke into their conversation and asked if they were discussing the law for “fags”. They
replied that the law in question was intended to protect all citizens of Moldova, including
gays. The driver instantly said: “You call them “gays” – such beautiful words – but they are
simply faggots”. He added: “I would take a bludgeon myself and slaughter all of them. I
would break all their heads”. A GenderDoc-M staff member asked him if he knew any
homosexual to say things like that. He replied: “I don’t want to know or hear anything about
them. They are not humans”. Then he was informed that the taxi service he was working for
was a partner of an organisation which protects gay rights. The driver became more
aggressive: “How can you protect them? They are sodomites. It is one of the ten deadly sins.
I know it – I used to study this issue. They are perverts. They are not humans, they are
brutes. They are unworthy of being called men. I would kill them”.
9 June 2011
9
Attachment 1
The Written Declaration presented by Mr Mogens Jensen on 12 April, and the counter declaration
presented by Ms Ana Gutu on 15 April
1. Homophobic speech by members of Moldova’s parliament and intimidation of LGBT
human rights defenders - Written Declaration No 474
In Moldova a proposal for anti discrimination legislation which includes protection on the grounds of
sexual orientation has been withdrawn following opposition in recent weeks by members of
parliament. This opposition has all too often been expressed in language marked by homophobia
and intolerance, for example, characterising homosexuals as a danger to society, as trying to impose
their “abnormal” practices on others, and as a danger to the survival of the family unit.
During this time two human rights defenders working for the rights of LGBT people have
experienced intimidation at the hands of members of the public, with violent behaviour and attacks
on property.
We call upon all Moldovan members of parliament to accept, in accordance with Recommendation
No. R(97) 20 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on “hate speech”, that they have a
particular responsibility to refrain from statements which are likely to produce the effect of
legitimising, spreading or promoting discrimination or hatred based on intolerance, and to recognize
particularly that such speech can endanger the safety and well-being of others.
2. Unjustified damage to the image of the Moldovan Parliament - Written Declaration No 480
In the written declaration (WD no. 474-Doc. 12579) "Homophobic speech by members of Moldova's
parliament and intimidation of LGBT human rights defenders", signed by a group of Parliamentary
Assembly members, there is a discrepancy between its accusatory title and its groundless content.
There have been no homophobic speeches by any member of the Moldovan Parliament, a fact easily
attested by all the documentary evidence, such as video recordings, minutes of parliamentary
discussions and media coverage.
The Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights initiated hearings and public debates related to the
National Human Rights Plan with a large participation of members of Parliament and NGO
representatives, concerning the adoption of the anti-discrimination law.
After further improvements, the Government will send the draft of the anti-discrimination law back
to the Parliament for adoption.
It is regrettable that Assembly members have been misled into signing a baseless declaration, thus
becoming accomplices in spreading lies which damage unjustifiably the image of a member state of
the Council of Europe.
10
Attachment 2
Examples of homophobic statements made by members of the Moldovan Parliament
in March 2011
Eduard Musuc, the Communist Party, speaking in a telephone interview broadcast on 8 March
2011 on the TV Channel Publika TV:
“These issues are not even a subject for discussion. We are at the time of the Great Fast. The
behaviour of these individuals, who frantically try to promote these kind of things, should be
somehow tempered. If they keep being so impudent insisting on those things, I am afraid that the
civilized part of our society, consisting of 99%, will seek revenge… I refuse to discuss this antidiscrimination law within the [Parliamentary] Committee because our country doesn’t need an antidiscrimination law”.13
Commentary: This statement may "produce the effect of legitimising, spreading or promoting
discrimination or hatred based on intolerance" because:
 The tone of the language used is distinctly intolerant of lesbian, gay and bisexual persons
claiming their fundamental rights.
 Against the background of such language, saying that "I am afraid that the civilised part of
our society, consisting of 99%, will seek revenge", without any repudiation of the anticipated
discrimination or violence, could be taken by some listeners as condoning – or even
encouraging - discrimination or violence.
Vladimir Voronin, Leader of the Communist Party, and former President of the Republic;
interview on the steps of the Moldovan parliament on 17 March 2011, broadcast on Pro TV news:
“We live in the animal world, in the animal world such a thing does not exist. We are not going to
support this law.”14
Commentary: This statement may "produce the effect of legitimising, spreading or promoting
discrimination or hatred based on intolerance" because, in saying that, "in the animal world such a
thing does not exist", Mr Voronin is presenting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons not
just as subhuman, but lower even than animals. Such statements are all the more concerning when
the speaker is a former President of the Republic.15
In another interview on the steps of the Moldovan parliament on 17 March 2011, Mr Voronin is
reported at the Moldova AZI website to have made the following statement:
“I am for the family. This violates all the standards of civilisation, Christianity and the entire
humanity. It’s not normal. Our party will not support, it does not even discuss such subjects, and if
the governing alliance will support the law, it’s their problem”.16
Commentary: This statement may "produce the effect of legitimising, spreading or promoting
discrimination or hatred based on intolerance" because it implies that lesbian, gay, and bisexual
13
14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWIOzwSMz40&feature=player_embedded#at=13
http://www.protv.md/#!/stiri/politic/protest-anti-homosexual-in-fata-parlamentului-deputatii-se-intrunesc.html
15
As a matter of fact Mr Voronin’s statement is also incorrect: homosexual behaviour is common in the animal
world.
16
http://www.azi.md/ro/story/17174
11
persons undermine the family, civilisation, and all humanity; and because the statement “it’s not
normal” characterizes lesbian, gay and bisexual persons in derogatory terms.
Igor Dodon, the Communist Party, and a candidate for Chisinau’s 2011 mayoral elections, on 17
March 2011, in an interview published at the Unimedia website:17
“One of the steps to strengthen the birth rate is to strengthen our healthy Moldovan traditions,
especially the cult of the family. The divorce statistics in Moldova are alarming. And even more
alarming are all sorts of morbid initiatives which suggest legalisation and promotion of sexual
relations which exceed normality and traditional Moldovan ethics.”18
Commentary: This statement may "produce the effect of legitimising, spreading or promoting
discrimination or hatred based on intolerance" because Mr Dodon uses derogatory language,
including the implication that LGBT people are "abnormal". It can also be taken to imply that LGBT
people are at least in part to be blamed for Moldova’s low birth rate, thus presenting them as a
threat to the nation.
Mihai Ghimpu, the Liberal Party, a former interim President of the Republic; interview on the
steps of the Moldovan parliament on 17 March 2011, broadcast on Pro TV news:
“There were homosexuals among members of the parliament in the Republic of Moldova. It’s better
to love a woman than a man, but I voted for decriminalisation of homosexuality because it was one
of the conditions to join the Council of Europe. I saw how the eyes of several MPs were shining
when it happened. I thought, “Lord! How can I vote for this?”
He said: "We are liberals, but we are healthy and we want to have healthy families. Homosexuality is
a deviation, nature is nature, but we don't have to put them in the frontline. We don't take patients
from psychiatric institutions to bring them on our main square. With all respect for them I will not
vote for this law!"19
Commentary: Mr Ghimpu refers in the first paragraph to his feelings when voting for
decriminalisation of homosexuality. His statement may "produce the effect of legitimising, spreading
or promoting discrimination or hatred based on intolerance" because he implies that he regrets
voting for decriminalisation, and by extension, that homosexuals should be treated as criminals.
Moreover, his statement that "there were homosexuals among members of parliament", and his
comment that "I saw how the eyes of several MPs were shining" are, given the homophobic tenor of
his speech, a disturbing incitement to hatred against LGBT people who are members of parliament.
His statement in the second paragraph may "produce the effect of legitimising, spreading or
promoting discrimination or hatred based on intolerance" because his reactions to the proposed
anti-discrimination law imply that homosexuality is unnatural, that it is comparable to some form of
mental illness, and that it is a threat to the family.
17
The interview was originally given to the website cumatria.md, and reposted by Unimedia.
http://unimedia.md/?mod=news&id=31336
19 http://www.protv.md/#!/stiri/politic/protest-anti-homosexual-in-fata-parlamentului-deputatii-se-intrunesc.html
18
12
Valeriu Ghiletchi, the Liberal Democratic Party, on 8 March 2011, at his website:
“I became deeply sad when I heard about the Government’s decision to pass the bill regarding
prevention and combating of discrimination to the Parliament… Without any doubt, this draft law
presents a potential danger for the integrity of the family and the freedom of expression of the
Church in terms of moral issues… if the “sexual orientation” phrase is erased, then the law per se
does not represent any danger for society… I think the best solution would be to reject the bill
completely”.20
Commentary: This statement may "produce the effect of legitimising, spreading or promoting
discrimination or hatred based on intolerance" because it characterises LGBT people as a "potential
danger" to the family, and to society.
The statement was made in the context of an exchange of messages between Mr Ghiletchi and an
extreme homophobe. We acknowledge in Mr Ghiletchi’s favour that he attempted to persuade this
man to adopt a less extreme position.
Marian Lupu, Interim President of the Republic, and Leader of the Democratic Party: interview
broadcast on 30 March 2011 on Publica TV in the talk show “Fabrika”.21
“About gay parades: Why do heterosexual people not organize parades but homosexuals want to
hold gay parades?
We must tell the truth, antidiscrimination law is only a beginning. After, those homosexuals will ask
for other rights - “give them a finger, and they will bite the hand”. The law must stipulate that it
does not provide same-sex marriage and the adoption of children.”22
Commentary: This statement may "produce the effect of legitimising, spreading or promoting
discrimination or hatred based on intolerance", because of the intolerant tone used, and because
the phrase "give them a finger, and they will bite the hand" presents LGBT people in a dehumanised
and threatening manner.
Violeta Ivanov, president of the Environment and Climate Change Committee, Communist Party:
“The Environment and Climate Change Committee chooses a healthy environment, healthy and
successful families, however, what this law is trying to impose on our society are some abnormal
homosexual practices which represent defiance of our society’s moral basics. The Republic of
Moldova is an Orthodox Christian country with beautiful, correct traditions inherited from our
millennial ancestors. Basing on this, I believe adoption of the draft law on preventing and combating
discrimination would infringe all church canons leading eventually to society’s “sickening”.23
Commentary: Four elements of this statement may "produce the effect of legitimising, spreading or
promoting discrimination or hatred based on intolerance":
 characterising the introduction of legislation protecting lesbian, gay, and bisexual people
from discrimination as "trying to impose on our society …. some abnormal homosexual
practices”, taken literally, raises the unjustified fear that lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons
20
http://valeriughiletchi.org/2011/03/proiectul-de-lege-privind-combaterea-discriminarii/
http://www.publika.md/emisiuni/fabrika_411.html
22 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S6F1EIZktFc
23 http://www.flux.md/articole/11537/
21
13



will "impose some abnormal homosexual practices" (whatever that may mean) on the rest
of society if they are no longer subject to discrimination;
the use of the term "abnormal" characterises lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in a
derogatory and dehumanising fashion;
suggesting that adoption of the law will lead to society's "sickening" characterises lesbian,
gay, and bisexual people as an exceptional threat to society, one for which there is no
evidence or justification;
suggesting that adoption of the law would be a threat to "healthy and successful families" s
likewise presents LGBT people as a threat to society, something for which there is no
evidence.
Valentina Buliga, the Minister of Labour, Social Protection and Family, the Democratic Party, in a
statement published at the Flux website on 25 March 2011:
“The model of individual human rights should not affect another person’s rights to assembly,
opinion and family; at the same time, the specificities of societies should be emphasised as well as
the importance attributed to the moral and Christian values of the native population, etc.
This model is being used as a means to try to impose an atypical behaviour and lifestyle on society,
under the cover of tolerance. In our view, we are dealing here not with human rights, but rather
with a behaviour and lifestyle of specific sexual practices which might lead to the destruction of the
family unit – society’s fundamental structure. Matrimony is an institution that is the basis of
civilisation, a union exclusively between a man and a woman who are granted the responsibility to
perpetuate the species, to learn, teach and pass on to their successors shared moral values. To
redefine marriage so as to include same-sex couples means to “widow” matrimony of an essential
component, namely of the ability and duty to procreate. This would make marriage meaningless and
would open it to endless redefinitions and reconsiderations. (…)”.24
Commentary: This statement may "produce the effect of legitimising, spreading or promoting
discrimination or hatred based on intolerance" because:
 characterising advocacy for equal rights of LGBT people as "a means to try to impose an
atypical behaviour and lifestyle on society" suggests, taken literally, that the purpose of
advocacy for such rights is to force the population as a whole to adopt homosexual
behaviour. This is entirely erroneous, and portrays LGBT people as a serious danger to the
rights of others. It may be that the speaker actually meant to say: "a means to try to impose
acceptance of an atypical behaviour and lifestyle on society". If so, she was irresponsible in
not making that clear. But even this would have mis-stated the position: anti-discrimination
laws do not force individuals to change their minds, but rather prevent them from engaging
in acts of discrimination against those with whom they disagree.
 In the same way, the suggestion that accepting that LGBT people should enjoy the same
rights as everyone else may lead to the "destruction of the family unit" represents LGBT
people as a serious danger to society, but is also completely false.
24
http://www.flux.md/articole/11537/
14
15
Attachment 3
Extract from the Gross Report on responding to the most common prejudices about
homosexuality
Most common prejudices
Response
“Homosexuality is an illness”
The World Health Organization ruled nearly twenty years ago
that homosexuality is not an illness.11
“Homosexuality is abnormal”, a
“distortion of the personality”
Mainstream scientific and medical opinion holds that
homosexuality is a natural variant of human behaviour.*
* “Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed,
several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental
health organisations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of
human experience” (American Psychological Association).12
“Homosexuality is immoral”
This is a subjective view usually based on religious dogma. In a
democratic society it cannot be a basis for limiting the rights of
others.
“Homosexuality is increasing”
The number of lesbians, gays and bisexuals is not increasing.
They are just becoming more visible.*
* The UK Government estimates that between 5% and 7% of the population is lesbian, gay or
bisexual. With discrimination reducing, more are open about their sexual orientation, giving the
impression that numbers are increasing.
“Homosexuality is worsening the Blaming a small minority for national demographic decline is
demographic crisis and
manifestly illogical and serves only to distract from addressing
threatening the future of the
its real causes.*
nation”
* There is no link between supporting the rights of lesbians, gays and bisexuals and demographic
decline. Indeed, some of the countries in Europe that have been most successful in addressing
demographic problems – the Nordic states13 – have led the way in supporting the rights of lesbian,
gay and bisexual people, while many of those which have been most repressive towards them have
the most serious demographic problems.
“Legal recognition of same-sex
couples is a danger to the
traditional family”
Granting legal recognition to same-sex couples has no influence
on whether heterosexuals marry or have children.*
* The “traditional family” (that is, a married heterosexual couple with children) has been declining in
many European countries because a growing proportion of heterosexuals are choosing not to marry,
because of increasing divorce rates, and because more married heterosexuals are choosing not to
have children. Granting legal recognition to same-sex couples will affect this trend only insofar as it
will reduce the number of lesbians and gays who feel compelled to enter into heterosexual
marriages, and the number of painful divorces that generally follow.
“Propaganda can convert young
people to homo-sexuality”
There is no evidence to support this view.*
* If 1600 years of persecution – including the death penalty, imprisonment, discrimination and social
ostracism – have not been able to “convert” homosexuals into heterosexuals, mere information
16
about homosexuality will certainly not influence the sexual orientation of heterosexual people,
whatever their age.
“Homosexuals are a danger to
children”
Gay, lesbian and bisexual people are no more likely to be a
threat to children than heterosexuals.*
* “The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry finds that there is no evidence that
lesbians and gay men, per se, represent any threat to the development of children or adolescents
and condemns any restriction on employment or service based on sexual orientation in positions
involving the delivery of services or treatment to children and adolescents.”
“Propaganda about
The European Court of Human Rights has held that disapproval
homosexuality can be prevented of “propaganda about homosexuality” is not a justification for
because it is not the same as
denying freedom of assembly or expression.
exercising one’s freedom of
assembly or expression”
“Protection of young people
requires discriminatory
treatment”
The European Court of Human Rights has rejected this
justification, finding that male adolescents cannot be
“recruited” into homosexuality through homosexual
experience, and that sexual orientation is in most cases
established before the age of puberty.
“Protection of the traditional
family justifies discrimination
against same-sex couples”
The European Court of Human Rights has held that
governments must show why it is necessary to exclude samesex couples from rights or benefits granted to traditional
families in order to protect such families.
“Homosexuals are not fit to bring The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that lesbian or
up children”
gay individuals must be treated in the same way as
heterosexual individuals with regard to custody of a child, or
eligibility to adopt a child.
17